Design Archives: Sustainable Solutions for Young Designers in Valencia, Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented article is a work on the analysis of possible directions for sustainable creativity of designers in relation to the silk products of the region. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of design, statistics and sustainable development. The authors have done interesting work with designers, obtained indicative results, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:
1. Perhaps the authors should slightly increase the abstract of the article, expanding the description of the work done.
2. In the title of the work, the authors should specify the geography of the study under consideration, as well as the material and subject of the production under consideration.
3. Authors should avoid simultaneously citing several sources and consider each source separately. All used abbreviations should be deciphered at the first mention of them.
4. The figures used by the authors should be slightly enlarged, as well as the text on the diagrams for a better perception of information. Figure 4a (top) and Figure 4b (bottom), as well as Figure 5a and Figure 5b, should be separated for better understanding and perception. In general, it is better for the authors to revise the numbering of figures with "a" and "b" and their location.
5. What preliminary conclusions can be drawn at the end of subsections 4.1 and 4.2?
6. What justified the choice of SPSS v. software. 12.3?
7. It would be interesting to study the work of students when they are published in any possible form (links to them, if any).
8. Is it possible to apply Victor Josef Papanek's "sustainable" design approaches to the products considered by the authors?
9. At the end of the article, the authors should add a section "Directions for further research".
10. Where and how is it planned to implement the research results obtained by the authors?
In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without minor shortcomings. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".
Author Response
The presented article is a work on the analysis of possible directions for sustainable creativity of designers in relation to the silk products of the region. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of design, statistics and sustainable development. The authors have done interesting work with designers, obtained indicative results, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:
We thank the reviewer for your kind comments.
- Perhaps the authors should slightly increase the abstract of the article, expanding the description of the work done.
We have increased the abstract of the article, specifying the area of work, methodology and the main findings.
- In the title of the work, the authors should specify the geography of the study under consideration, as well as the material and subject of the production under consideration.
We have specified that this is a Valencian (Spain) case study.
- Authors should avoid simultaneously citing several sources and consider each source separately. All used abbreviations should be deciphered at the first mention of them.
We have cited sources one by one and we have significantly increased the bibliography, especially at the introduction. We consider that this introduction makes the object of study clearer.
- The figures used by the authors should be slightly enlarged, as well as the text on the diagrams for a better perception of information. Figure 4a (top) and Figure 4b (bottom), as well as Figure 5a and Figure 5b, should be separated for better understanding and perception. In general, it is better for the authors to revise the numbering of figures with "a" and "b" and their location.
We have enlarged all the figures, now they are bigger and clearer. We have included new figures that illustrate each project better.
- What preliminary conclusions can be drawn at the end of subsections 4.1 and 4.2?
We have added a discussion section (Section 5) after sections 4.1 and 4.2 to clarify the preliminary conclusions. Here we discuss participatory experiences in cultural heritage related to design and Papanek’s sustainable design approaches in our case study.
.6. What justified the choice of SPSS v. software. 12.3?
It is a software that helps us easily code and analyze data.
- It would be interesting to study the work of students when they are published in any possible form (links to them, if any).
We increased the number of images related to the work of students, unfortunately, these are not uploaded on any website.
- Is it possible to apply Victor Josef Papanek's "sustainable" design approaches to the products considered by the authors?
Yes, many thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. We explained it in the discussion section.
- At the end of the article, the authors should add a section "Directions for further research". 10. Where and how is it planned to implement the research results obtained by the authors?
We thank the author for these comments. We added a future research section (Section 6) where we explained how we are planning to use the results in other projects and in other workshops.
In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without minor shortcomings. After eliminating these comments and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The general concept of the study is not understood. It looks more like an introduction to a local design lab than an article. Evaluation of art an design schools through a single institution does not seem very rational. The study needs to be matured with other examples, supported by field research, strengthened with interviews with experts or surveys.
I have some comments and suggest as following:
- More concrete findings should be added to the abstract section. The abstract, as it stands, is rather short and vague.
- In the abstract, the importance and general situation of the subject should be briefly explained.
- The article is written in a generally subjective language. However, it should be written objectively in a scientific language.
- The importance of the study, its difference from the literature and its original aspect should be stated at the end of the introduction.
- The results and discussion part is insufficient. It should be rearranged with different field applications.
- In the conclusion part, the effects of the study on researches in other fields should be explained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled, “Design archives: sustainable solutions for young designers in Valencia, Spain” to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate your time and effort dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you raised.
To facilitate your review, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments you delivered.
The general concept of the study is not understood. It looks more like an introduction to a local design lab than an article. Evaluation of art an design schools through a single institution does not seem very rational. The study needs to be matured with other examples, supported by field research, strengthened with interviews with experts or surveys.
We have supported our researcher by other examples and strengthen the whole article as suggested.
I have some comments and suggest as following:
- More concrete findings should be added to the abstract section. The abstract, as it stands, is rather short and vague. In the abstract, the importance and general situation of the subject should be briefly explained.
We have increased the abstract of the article, specifying the area of work, methodology and the main findings.
- The article is written in a generally subjective language. However, it should be written objectively in a scientific language.
We have added more references and edited the text with a proofreader. We have significantly increased the bibliography, especially at the introduction. The introduction includes similar research and how we address design education, cultural heritage and ICT resources.
- The results and discussion part is insufficient. It should be rearranged with different field applications.
We thank the author for these comments. We added a future research section (Section 6) where we explained how we are planning to use the results in other projects and in other workshops.
- In the conclusion part, the effects of the study on researches in other fields should be explained.
Reviewers can find how our research can be used in other fields both in Section 6 and in Conclusions (section 7).
Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.
Sincerely,
Dr Mar Gaitán
Corresponding Author
Postdoctoral Fellow “Margarita Salas”
Art History Department
University of Valencia
[email protected]
+ 34 9639 83413
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction is not interesting. Note the innovation of the work and its differences from previous works
The last paragraph of Introduction should include the study objectives/procedures in brief.
The “Statistical analysis” section should be added to the manuscript.
Many grammar errors could be found in the paper, please check and deeply revise them. Also, the English language of the paper should be improved.
Quantitative information should be provided in the abstract.
Author Response
The introduction is not interesting. Note the innovation of the work and its differences from previous works
We thank the author for this comment. It helped us to rearrange our paper. First, we have added more references and edited the text with a proofreader. We have significantly increased the bibliography, especially at the introduction. The introduction includes similar research and how we address design education, cultural heritage and ICT resources. We explained the current state of the art and how our research includes cultural heritage in design education with positive results.
The last paragraph of Introduction should include the study objectives/procedures in brief.
We have better described our objectives and methodology used.
The “Statistical analysis” section should be added to the manuscript.
We have specified this part in the results section.
The English language of the paper should be improved.
We proofread the paper and the English language is improved.
Quantitative information should be provided in the abstract.
We have increased the abstract of the article, specifying the area of work, methodology and the main findings as well as including quantitative information.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carefully made the suggested corrections for the previous version, one by one. In its current form, the article is acceptable.
